How necessary is the PGDL for the SQE?
About 15 years ago, after graduating, I studied the GDL. I got just above the threshold for a commendation, but I narrowly failed an exam by a few marks, so my overall mark was capped at a pass.
I went on to work in a career unrelated to law, but I am now making a career change to law. I have been fortunate to get a training contract. The firm does not fund, nor require, its non-law prospective trainees to take the PGDL.
As I did the GDL so long ago, I have forgotten it all (well, I remember a case involving a snail and ginger beer, that's really about the extent of it). So the position I'm in, in terms of my level of knowledge, is essentially the same as if I hadn't done it.
I'm wondering whether I should progress straight to an SQE prep course, or if it would be wise to study the PGDL first? (The firm my TC is with has moved to SQE, so doing the LPC is unfortunately not an option for me).
I suppose another option would be to try and be very self-disciplined and get the PGDL textbooks and try to learn it myself, to see if it helps conjure any of it up from the dark recesses of my memory from 15 years ago.
I have the money to fund the PGDL, though £15k is a lot, especially when you factor in lost earnings whilst studying, and the fact that the firm my TC is with does not even require it. However, I fear that without doing the PGDL, the risk of failing SQE is greater, which would result in losing my training contract.
Are there any non-law grads out there who have taken the SQE route without doing the PGDL? How was it?
And if I wasn't offered an NQ role following the training contract, as most firms still require the PGDL, could I be at a disadvantage compared to other candidates (all other factors being equal)?
Thanks!
About 15 years ago, after graduating, I studied the GDL. I got just above the threshold for a commendation, but I narrowly failed an exam by a few marks, so my overall mark was capped at a pass.
I went on to work in a career unrelated to law, but I am now making a career change to law. I have been fortunate to get a training contract. The firm does not fund, nor require, its non-law prospective trainees to take the PGDL.
As I did the GDL so long ago, I have forgotten it all (well, I remember a case involving a snail and ginger beer, that's really about the extent of it). So the position I'm in, in terms of my level of knowledge, is essentially the same as if I hadn't done it.
I'm wondering whether I should progress straight to an SQE prep course, or if it would be wise to study the PGDL first? (The firm my TC is with has moved to SQE, so doing the LPC is unfortunately not an option for me).
I suppose another option would be to try and be very self-disciplined and get the PGDL textbooks and try to learn it myself, to see if it helps conjure any of it up from the dark recesses of my memory from 15 years ago.
I have the money to fund the PGDL, though £15k is a lot, especially when you factor in lost earnings whilst studying, and the fact that the firm my TC is with does not even require it. However, I fear that without doing the PGDL, the risk of failing SQE is greater, which would result in losing my training contract.
Are there any non-law grads out there who have taken the SQE route without doing the PGDL? How was it?
And if I wasn't offered an NQ role following the training contract, as most firms still require the PGDL, could I be at a disadvantage compared to other candidates (all other factors being equal)?
Thanks!
